“Ultimate goal of research is to benefit society” – report
A white paper from Sage highlights a growing disconnect between social and behavioural science (SBS) researchers’ commitment to societal benefit and the institutional systems that shape their careers. The report, Do social scientists care if they make societal impact?, draws on survey responses from more than 1,800 SBS researchers across 96 countries and suggests that, even as global funding pressures and policy demands intensify, many researchers feel their aspirations are not reflected in university incentives.
The study finds that 92% of respondents believe the ultimate goal of research is to benefit society. However, only 76% think their peers feel the same, and just 68% believe this view is shared by their institutional leadership.
Ziyad Marar, President of Global Publishing at Sage, said the findings reinforce the need to rethink how impact is understood and rewarded.
He said: “We believe social science has the power to improve, and even save, lives – a belief that has driven us to champion these disciplines for 60 years,” he said. “At times, this means we have to challenge the status quo of what matters in higher education, for example, by moving beyond an overemphasis on scholarly impact measures toward recognising research that benefits people through policy, practice, and public life. It’s important that we listen closely to researchers themselves as we do this work – understanding what motivates them, where they focus their efforts, and what barriers stand in their way. This report does exactly that.”
While many respondents value peer regard over citation metrics, they believe university administrators continue to focus on journal impact factors in promotion and tenure decisions. Researchers also say they care more about societal impact than advancing up the academic ladder, yet perceive their peers and institutions as more career-driven.
Only 37% report that applying research outside academia is rewarded in tenure or promotion; 30% say they receive no recognition at all. As one U.S. respondent put it: “The only measure that I really care about is my ability to impact practice in the field, and yet there is no good way to know if that happens. All the other metrics are internal to the discipline and really don’t measure anything useful. I don’t care about impacting my colleagues and being cited, I want to impact practice in the field.”